Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.
940 F. Supp. 2d 110
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Defendants renewed their motion for summary judgment after the Second Circuit remand in Viacom v. YouTube requiring further briefing on four issues.
- Court directed briefing to determine (A) knowledge of specific infringements, (B) willful blindness, (C) right and ability to control infringing activity, (D) syndication and safe harbor applicability.
- DMCA safe harbor at 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) and its burden-shifting for notices; evidence shows volume of clips but not clip-by-clip knowledge.
- Court concludes no knowledge of specific infringements (A) and no willful blindness (B); no sufficient control under § 512(c)(1)(B) (C); and relevant syndication does not remove safe harbor (D).
- Decision grants renewed summary judgment for defendants, with judgment that YouTube is protected by § 512(c) safe harbor and complaint dismissed with costs.
- Text clarifies that DMCA monitoring duties are constrained by 512(m) and that owners must identify infringements for safe harbor removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of specific infringements | Viacom argues YouTube lacked proof of notice per 512(c)(3) and so cannot rely on safe harbor. | YouTube bears no duty to monitor; notices must be identified by copyright owner; volume does not shift burden. | No knowledge or awareness of specific infringements established. |
| Willful blindness | Viacom contends YouTube ignored red flags indicating infringements. | Willful blindness is not proven; no specific infringements identified; mere awareness insufficient. | No willful blindness to specific infringements proven. |
| Right and ability to control § 512(c)(1)(B) | Viacom argues YouTube’s control over content and editorial actions shows “something more.” | Evidence shows normal platform control; no prescreening or active participation in user infringements. | YouTube did not have the right and ability to control under § 512(c)(1)(B). |
| Syndication and § 512(c) safe harbor applicability | Viacom claims third-party syndication outside safe harbor due to sua sponte business deals. | Syndication tools simply provide access/format transcoding; not manual selection or delivery harming safe harbor. | Syndication agreements protected by § 512(c); not outside safe harbor. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 600 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (willful blindness equates to knowledge in copyright law)
- In re Aimster Copyright Litig., 334 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2003) (willful blindness constitutes knowledge)
- Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 755 (Supreme Court 2011) (willful blindness doctrine applied in patent/copyright contexts)
- Grokster, Ltd. v. MGM, 545 U.S. 913 (Supreme Court 2005) (conscious culpable conduct may subject service providers to liability)
- UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners, LLC, 718 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2013) (high level of user influence may defeat safe harbor)
- Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC, 821 F. Supp. 2d 627 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (service provider not liable where not actively involved in listing/sale)